DANBURY, Conn. -- Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton announced Wednesday that he is leaving the advocacy group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" and immediately drew criticism from Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung and an outreach associate for the organization.

Boughton, who joined the group founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in February 2013, said in a statement that he is leaving because he disagreed with the direction Bloomberg is taking the group.

"I joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns because I believe enforcement of existing gun laws is preferable to creating new gun laws," Boughton said in the release. "It is clear in recent months, however, that Bloomberg's mission has changed from law enforcement to simply increasing gun regulations. As a result, today I have ended my affiliation with Bloomberg's group."

Lafferty and the group were quick to criticize Boughton's decision.

“My mom and my family have strong ties to Danbury – it was where my mother held her first school administration job and I know it is a place that was dear to her heart," Lafferty said in a statement. "That’s why I feel betrayed to learn that Mayor Boughton is putting his personal political ambitions ahead of the safety of Connecticut families. In fact, the tagline for his campaign is 'People over Politics' – but the only people that this decision serves are gun lobbyists."

“We need leaders who have the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and who support common-sense reforms that respect rights while protecting people – that’s what Mayors Against Illegal Guns supports and fights for," Lafferty added in the statement. "Our state has been devastated by gun violence and we will remind voters of this betrayal of our trust when it comes time to cast votes."

Dawn Hochsprung was one of six adults and 20 children to be killed in a shooting massacre in Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns was founded in 2006 by Bloomberg and is co-chaired by former Boston mayor Thomas Menino. More than 1,000 mayors nationwide are part of the advocacy group.

If you are correct Robby Rob, don't you think our illustrious leader Marconi would have banned "assault weapons" by now. Remember, he wanted stronger laws that those passed by the legislature. He felt they didn't go far enough and had the town attorneys research it. Did he not pass a stronger law because it was illegal, or because he was too scared of all us nasty gun owners? I know you don't know the answer so perhaps you can ask him and get back to me. Or maybe, if he is reading this he can answer directly.

A Powers's
Actually a town or city can have an ordinance that bans all or some weapons. NYC is a perfect example. >>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely WRONG and if anyone was fined under this ordinance i would institute a law suite against the town and all the selectmen for violating my rights .Towns can not make gun regulations the permits are issued by the state. So i guess banning a Toyota Prius is out of the question because it pollutes so much. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON THIS.

@ Patriot Rudy had illusions of Granger about banning certain guns and mags in Ridgefield. I guess he thinks he is the GOVERNOR and can make state laws. Hay rudy my pistol permit is issued by the state NOT YOU> !!!

Now that MAIG is failing Bloomberg is spending $50 million to create a new organization; Everytown For Gun Safety. I wonder if Rudy Marconi is going to join it also. I so much would like Bloomberg to visit Ridgefield and praise Marconi for his anti-gun efforts. And while he is here the two of them could publicly ask Malloy why he isn't requiring Jepsen to get warrants to arrest all us Unregistered Assault Weapon Owners. (Answer- He's too scared). Now dear Rudy, why don't you comment here?

A Powers, I respectfully disagree. He dropped out because he saw the writing on the wall that he had no chance of getting the republican nomination for governor exactly because of his joining MAIG. Notice that he didn't drop out until after several thousand people showed up at the CCDL rally in Hartford. I will say that as far as I can tell he has been good for Danbury. I just think he jumped on the anti second amendment band wagon when it looked like the in thing for politicians. Rather than say that he dropped out because he supposedly found out MAIG is straying too far from its' inception, which has been the same since day one, Boughton should just have said he was wrong and didn't realize what the hell he was doing in the first place.

People should be investigating the homes of 15 of the 20 Sandy Hook child victims, 1-2 of the 7 adult victims, and all 6 of the Sandy Hook adult non-victims (the Phelps, Gene Rosen, the three Selectmen) have the mysterious sale date and $0 sale price.

Instead of focusing on "gun laws" why aren't we asking why a gas company owns half the town now?

Anyone running on an anti-gun political campaign will lose in this state. After Newtown and 20 innocent babies killed, one can only imagine the cold blood running thru the veins of such an individual. Not a single Republican will ever stand a chance of winning a CT election no matter how savvy or ambitious they are; all politics aside when the young are dying because of gun violence, nothing matters other than removing the guns from the hands of the people. Guns kill, it is a simple as that. Get rid of them all and don't east your money supporting this evil person who puts politics before people including the young, innocent and most vulnerable - the children.

The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership
The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

If only you and the liberal courts understand the meaning of "legislative intent". The Founders own quotes specifically imply that citizens have a right to own arms. It's as if anti-constitutionalists don't know why the Constitution wouldn't and couldn't be ratified until a bill of rights was incorporated within it. It's also as if the Federalists' Papers were written for nothing. Da!

Second Amendment
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amen

A Natural—But Not a Second Amendment-Guaranteed—Right to Own a Gun?
The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

The problem with Mayers Against Illegal Guns is that they want ALL guns to be illegal. Boughton, realizing his chances of being the republican nominee for governor because of his membership in MAIG, made this excuse up. I don't believe he is so stupid or ignorant of MAIG that he didn't know its' doctrine, which has never changed.

Actually the founder of this great nation never intended the individual to have the right to own a gun.
Key words a well organized militia
If you don't like it go to some 3rd world country where you belong.

You're just plain ignorant. I guess you still haven't had a chance to read the Federalists' Papers. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which text pertains to the second amendment. You probably don't even know who wrote them. After all, if you did, you would understand what was being guaranteed even without the Bill of Rights being incorporated in the Constitution.

Not only does the Heller decision reaffirm the individual right to bear arm, but all one has to do is read quotes from the founders, what one might call "legislative intent". Then there is Connecticut's own constitution, and many other states' Constitutions that are very specific in the right to bear arms. Even Bloomberg knows individuals have the right to arms. He just wants massive restrictions to create a de facto outright ban. Most liberal politicians know the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, but also want massive restrictions.

If in fact you are right that the U.S. Constitution, and that of many states, do not affirm the individual right to keep arms, don't you think that between Clinton and Obama all guns would have been banned by now?

I just don't get why there are only a few people that actually believe the way you people do. It's as if you don't know the history of the Bill of Rights, or the Federalists' Papers.

If you feel Connecticut citizens shouldn't own assault weapons you should contact state police Lt. Vance (860-685-8290) and Gov. Malloy, and get them to arrest those gun owners that refused to register their assault weapons. Good luck with that.

Another one that hasn't read the federalists' papers or quotes of the founders.
Thomas Jefferson- "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms".
Samuel Adems- the Constitution be never construed to prevent the people from keeping their own arms".
John Adams- "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion ...in private self defense".
Patrick Henry- "the great object is, that every man be armed...Everyone who is able may have a gun".
And my favorite Thomas Jefferson quote- "What country can preserve its' liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms, the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is natures' manure".

Think about what Thomas Jefferson said, and the others. We have the right, the obligation to this country, to shed blood to preserve our freedoms and liberties. And its us that have the means to do it. No matter what happens we have the guns to preserve liberty.

Mark is a good friend and he has made Danbury a great place to live. I love danbury and i am so happy he is our MAYOR. He well knows the issues with guns and his approach is the best and he told Bloomburg to pound sand. There is no logical reason to institute more gun laws that do not work. And the kick in the head is no liberal gun ban goon is mad because the laws that are on the books are not used. Why is so many straw buyers walking our streets and not prosecuted. Reason being is the progressives do not want gun laws to work. because if they do there lust to hammer guns in to anvils will be over. I ask any of you gun ban goons to tell me any gun law that would have stopped SANDY HOOK!!